Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

That might make sense if he were actually giving her anything, rather than just taking stuff away. All he's granting her is "her father's love"; he's not even considering that she (or he, vicariously) might want anything else. He's not making any decisions for her, he's just locking her in a cage.

Locking her in a cage is him making every decision for her. What friends she can or cannot see. What clothes to shop for. Where she can go and when. He does stuff like this because he thinks he knows best, he thinks he's doing it all for her. He thinks he's giving her the world. He doesn't realize that he's just keeping her from it.

From her perspective he is removing all of her choices, all of her freedom. That makes him cruel from our perspective, but from his perspective he thinks he's doing the right thing. It is warped and cruel from our perspective, which engenders audience sympathy for Rea and anger at him.

Locking her in a cage is him making every decision for her. What friends she can or cannot see. What clothes to shop for. Where she can go and when. He does stuff like this because he thinks he knows best, he thinks he's doing it all for her. He thinks he's giving her the world. He doesn't realize that he's just keeping her from it.

From her perspective he is removing all of her choices, all of her freedom. That makes him cruel from our perspective, but from his perspective he thinks he's doing the right thing. It is warped and cruel from our perspective, which engenders audience sympathy for Rea and anger at him.

From what we've seen, it's not like he's trying to teach her or mold her in any way. He's not imposing his beliefs on her. He's not telling her what she wants. The idea that she is a being that might have wants at all seems to have escaped him entirely. He's not deciding that "oh, it would be best if she did this and that" or "surely she'll need such-and-such to grow up as a fine lady." He's treating her as an object who has no purpose but to fill his own desires. Not the desires he thinks she should have, his desires...

What you're talking about is what a normal restrictive parent might think, but there's no evidence in the anime that this particular father thinks like that. Pay attention to what he actually says rather than making assumptions based on stereotypes. "The only truth in the world in my love for you" does not sound like "I want you to have what I think is best for you."

Pay attention to what he actually says rather than making assumptions based on stereotypes.

Is there a lack of reading comprehension somewhere? He's molding her into the person he wants her to be. He is not considering what she wants, at all. He is imposing his own beliefs on her, because she's not allowed to express her own beliefs at all! It's his form of "love", it's twisted and warped but that's what it is. We are all molded by our parents in some way. Rea would be a completely different person had she been raised in another family. Rea's father cannot bridge the gap between his ideal daughter, the one he wants her to be, and the person she actually is. He uses his authority as the parental figure and his connections as a rich person to make her do what he wants and he's been quite effective at it.

This isn't assuming based on stereotypes. I've seen parents like him before, personally (not the picture stuff, but definitely the controlling part). It's a cultural problem in many nations too, hell in America they have television reality shows about controlling parents like Dance Moms and Toddlers in Tiaras.

I have not, at any point, defended what he is doing, and I absolutely agree that it is wrong on many many levels.

I'm half expecting someone, somewhere, somehow to defend the father on the basis of relative morality. Because, you know, his house, his rules, and outsiders have no right to impose their values on him and his family.

"It's all relative! There's no such thing as universal rights and wrongs!"

That's usually the case when someone wants to defend controversial social mores against those of so-called bigots, usually of the conservative variety.

I'm half expecting someone, somewhere, somehow to defend the father on the basis of relative morality. Because, you know, his house, his rules, and outsiders have no right to impose their values on him and his family.

"It's all relative! There's no such thing as universal rights and wrongs!"

That's usually the case when someone wants to defend controversial social mores against those of so-called bigots, usually of the conservative variety.

That totally reminds of what happened when I was banned from a certain forum because of the "liberal" tendencies of the admin. He wanted to "harmonize" the forums for the idealized "liberalism" which was supposed to be what "western civilization" stood for.

I'm half expecting someone, somewhere, somehow to defend the father on the basis of relative morality. Because, you know, his house, his rules, and outsiders have no right to impose their values on him and his family.

"It's all relative! There's no such thing as universal rights and wrongs!"

That's usually the case when someone wants to defend controversial social mores against those of so-called bigots, usually of the conservative variety.

As an abject moral relativist myself, I'd like to say that some "controversial social mores" are not defensible. On the other hand, so are some non-controversial traditional social mores, such as the idea that one's own version of morality is universal. Or its corollary, that powerful nations should impose their morality on others. And now, back to our show.

I'm half expecting someone, somewhere, somehow to defend the father on the basis of relative morality. Because, you know, his house, his rules, and outsiders have no right to impose their values on him and his family.

Nah, the red-necks of the forum are occupied with hating other shows with more explicit boobs

Quote:

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

"It's all relative! There's no such thing as universal rights and wrongs!"

That's usually the case when someone wants to defend controversial social mores against those of so-called bigots, usually of the conservative variety.

But on the relativist note, well you know morality is transient, but being a relativist does not necessarily imply that one has no morality (within his era), that would be lawfulness, when one discards morals in favor of convenience. From a nihilistic (aka mine) perspective, the whole father deal is just teenage angst / elderly lecherousness, as long as things don't get out of hand (e.g. he rapes her, she commits suicide, he shares the photos, etc)... now obviously (preview X spoilers) things will get out hand, and therefore none is eager to defend the dad

Now... on the other hand, where are all our contemporary feminists to curse that mother that is the worse example of subservient adult female since all the cast that Okada Mari has ever written

Damn, Studio DEEN is doing a mighty fine job on the adaptation so far. I'm not kidding, I'm actually very impressed. And a bit surprised at the fact that they're moving slowly through the story. If this adaptation only gets 12 episodes, then at this rate they'll probably not catch up with the manga and have to stop somewhere in the middle. (blatantly hoping for a 2-cour adaptation, or a second season if it stops at 1 cour )

While they expanded a bit more on Rea's backstory, those few scenes are some anime original content that I wouldn't really mind. It could work as a stronger foundation, and actually helped people empathize more with Rea's life. What can I say, I fully enjoyed this episode. Everything's going well so far, I just hope the adaptation work doesn't trip somewhere along the way...

The father character is necessary to prop up the protagonist who in all fairness is just another generic harem lead, and to draw the self-righteous fire from the audience thereby ignoring some of the more disturbing characterisations of the cast...

Folks at home, if you see a person get injured, even badly injured, even "OMG, he's dead" injured, please first contact the hospital and wait for a professional to do their work. Please do not just stand there thinking they are dead, because you can save them from dying!
(At least run up to them and check their pulse...)

Anyways, although she finally died, the moments leading up to her death kind of felt... "?!".
The father starts going crazy over allergies and some random crap and a seemingly soft whip sends Saten-san flying over the cliff. If she tripped... well, a bit more possible, but her entire body flew off the cliff...
Oh, and thanks for the Dark Matter. @censoring

To be honest, I'm starting to think the father is a better character than the protagonist...

__________________

-Blog --> http://tdnshumi.blogspot.com/ (Mainly about video games)
-R.I.P. Hiroshi Yamauchi, Gaming wouldn't have been the same without you (9/19/13)

...Now... on the other hand, where are all our contemporary feminists to curse that mother that is the worse example of subservient adult female since all the cast that Okada Mari has ever written

What I see is a typical situation in traditional patriarchal society. The father holds all the cards: the money, the house, the social respectability. The mother (or perhaps stepmother?) is disgusted but powerless. But who knows who she is calling on that phone...?

Without feminism, women today would not have the almost-equal standing they do. I can't just quietly accept reflex jabs against an important movement that we all have benefited from, both male and female. It wasn't that long ago that everyone accepted that women were second-class citizens, bound to obey their fathers and then their husbands. Equality has caused problems, I agree, but it sure beats inequality.

It wasn't that long ago that everyone accepted that women were second-class citizens, bound to obey their fathers and then their husbands. Equality has caused problems, I agree, but it sure beats inequality.

You are misrepresenting it. It wasn't about women being second-class citizens, it was about the contract that is marriage. And that is why it was accepted by everyone.
Husbands didn't own their wives, but they owned their wives' sexuality, because they payed for it with their money.
In return for their money, they received children from their wives.
These children (both boys and girls) were considered property of the husband, because he bought them.
Children born out of wedlock were still considered property of the mother.

Marriage is a very simple contract, where one party buys something the other party offers. Since nowadays that is no longer accepted, marriage is also something that is failing today.

Another enjoyable episode. They really emphasized just how miserable and tormented Rea is by her father and family in general. The imagery of the father's hands being deformed tendrils creeping from behind to touch her was very menacing. The mother is still a bit of enigma, especially the way she smiled when she saw Rea disobeying and leaving the house.

My only complaint was that Rea's transformation into a zombie was a tad underwhelming. While we all knew it was going to happen, and the first two episodes layed the ground work for episode being where it would occur, I can't help feeling they could have given more impact to the whole scene. I think there should have been more time between her death and resurrection.

Damn, Studio DEEN is doing a mighty fine job on the adaptation so far. I'm not kidding, I'm actually very impressed. And a bit surprised at the fact that they're moving slowly through the story. If this adaptation only gets 12 episodes, then at this rate they'll probably not catch up with the manga and have to stop somewhere in the middle. (blatantly hoping for a 2-cour adaptation, or a second season if it stops at 1 cour )

DEEN are one of the more sequel friendly studios around... as long as the production doesn't bomb as badly as say Umineko. Look @ Zombie, Sekaiichi Hatsukoi, Hakuouki and Mago as some recent examples.

One thing kept bothering me as I watched episode 3: did the cousin get out of the pipe? Twas especially distracting when it started raining. I kept imagining her still stuck in there as it filled with water (even though the rain didn't seem to last long). I blame the panty shots; I started caring about her fate quite a bit after seeing those.

I was worried about her too. Being stuck in a pipe like that would be terrifying. It's pitch black, you have no idea how close the exits are, no one can hear you... Even if they could hear you, how could they get you out?

One thing kept bothering me as I watched episode 3: did the cousin get out of the pipe? Twas especially distracting when it started raining. I kept imagining her still stuck in there as it filled with water (even though the rain didn't seem to last long). I blame the panty shots; I started caring about her fate quite a bit after seeing those.

She was stuck due to the sports equipment bag. She could have shoved that back and kept moving. But she's in the preview, so Furuya is going to get his ass kicked by her, at least in flash-back.